All Episodes
Previous Next
June 19, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
30:25
June 19, 2014, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Now look, I really don't intend to to sound no at all, or or I mean even though I do.
I mean I I don't I don't intend to sound condescending.
That's the word.
But I just I got a couple emails from people who were outraged that the media only asked Obama questions about Iraq.
They didn't ask him about the IRS, didn't ask out the VA, didn't ask him about the uh the borders, didn't ask him about uh you know the situation uh anywhere.
Uh didn't ask him about the economy, uh, immigrant I'm sorry, what do you folks I I don't look greetings and welcome back, Rush Limbaugh and the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
It's great to have you.
800-282-2882, the email address L Rushbo at EIBNet.com.
Just thinking of something here.
Um Obama said, if if I were still doing a TV show, I can tell you right now what one of the there would be two clips that we would be playing quite frequently on Rush the TV show tonight if there was one.
Obama said today that there's no military solution inside Iraq, and yet he's sending 300 military advisors to set up command centers and so forth.
Well, excuse me.
That's something that we would make fun of.
It's exactly the kind of thing the media did to George Bush every day.
Made fun of, and it's the exact kind of thing they won't do to Obama now.
The media reveled in portraying Bush as a blithering idiot, a bumbling fool, if you recall.
And don't think that it didn't matter.
It did.
It was huge.
And by the same token, this constant reverence that the sycophantic media has for Obama now works the same way.
If the media is constantly reverent and in awe and respect and so forth, and never pointing out these gaps like 57 states or there's no military solution.
I'm sending 300 military advisors, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
If they just can't bring themselves to make phase, a their guy.
B, the racial component, they're just not.
They just can't.
I mean, they're good liberals.
They can't laugh at minorities.
The minorities are powerless.
You don't laugh at the powerless.
You only laugh at the powerful.
That, by the way, is not the reason they hate me.
Because I was one of the first to come along and laugh at them.
And you just don't laugh at the left.
Because they consider themselves the minority, the put upon, the powerless.
And you're not supposed to make fun of and so forth, and I did, and that's that's and I was thinking about the the the real power that that kind of treatment or the lack of it has.
I mean, you wouldn't say whatever the popular show, daily show, whatever.
It would never just excuse this Obama contradiction.
They wouldn't even mention it.
And likewise, apparently there were some of you in the audience thinking that the media was gonna ask Obama challenging tough questions about what's happening at the border, or Benghazi, or the IRS and Lois Lerners vanishing emails.
And you and they didn't, and you're just I guess it's just never gonna stop.
I guess there's no way people are just always going to hold out hope that the media will what be fair.
But they're not.
There's no the media is the Democrat Party.
It is Obama.
They're not ever gonna do what you hope they would do.
And you're just gonna continue to be disappointed if you if you hold out hope that that's gonna change, because it isn't.
It's just one of the many things we have to overcome.
And it can be done, obviously.
They tried to do the same with Reagan, bumbling fool, amiable dunts.
Uh and they and they tried it with uh with Bush and worked uh with Bush.
And you could do it with Obama too.
I mean, here's somebody glittering jewel who has no idea what he's doing.
In one sense, the other sense he does and is succeeding at it greatly, but in terms of his experience and knowing what to do, he doesn't have any idea.
Do you have to do about health care and have any idea what to do about energy?
He doesn't have the slightest idea.
He knows what his agenda is.
He doesn't understand these things he's out destroying.
That he thinks he's helping.
Anyway, that's just that.
It's just a little observation hit me during the break when I saw these emails.
And I'm I do, you know, sometimes I sit there.
Can I can you imagine if we just a week we got late night TV treatment of Obama the way Bush got?
You can you imagine the difference in public opinion?
There would be profoundly different.
Public opinion, I guarantee you.
Might take longer than a week, but it would still be startling.
Here is John Kerry.
This now remember Obama is sending Kerry to Iraq in addition to the 300 military advisors.
Even though there is not a military solution.
And he actually did, by the way, Obama used his the voice that he uses when he's just so tired of the burdens of this office.
It just his voice in this statement today was why do I have to be bothered with this?
This is so beneath.
I really don't have to waste my time with this.
He said that he's not going to support one Muslim sect over another, meaning he's not going to choose sides between the Sunnis and the Shiites.
So I guess what does that mean?
He's going to help the Sunnis, ISIS forces just as much as he's going to help Malachi and the Shiites.
If he's not going to choose one over the other, why are we sending anybody in there?
I'll tell you what's going to happen if...
If we're not going to choose one side over the other, I'm going to tell you who's going to win.
ISIS is going to win.
The Sunni are going to win this.
In which case, you could almost say that Obama is calling for regime change in Iraq.
Oh, I hope the drive-bys hear that.
Oh, I hope they pick up on that.
Well, look at, again, if I had rushed the TV show, this is exactly the kind of stuff I'd be doing in the first segment.
He's not going to support one Muslim sect over another drive-by is in his.
Oh, isn't that so fair?
Isn't that just oh, that's so wonderful.
They're both equal.
And we're not going to choose sides, and we're not going to discriminate against one over the other.
So there's no bad guys, and there's no good guys.
Yet we're going to send military advisors in.
Now, we're not going to be advising ISIS.
I don't think.
Heck, who knows now?
But if we're going to send military advisors in, it's going to be for the Maliki forces, which are the Shiites.
And yet Obama's not going to choose one Muslim sect over another.
So we have to conclude that he's going to help the Sunni ISIS forces as much as he's going to help Malachi.
Which.
If you've got a civil war going, and if you've got a real aggressor, I mean, Sunni ISIS is.
I mean, they're having a lot of success in taking over town after town after town, and they're targeting Baghdad.
So obviously Obama is calling for regime change without saying so.
If we're going to send in 300 military advisors and we're not going to choose sides, does that mean 150 of those military advisors Are going to help ISIS and the other 150 are going to help Malachi.
Can you hear the Daily Show doing this?
Can you hear Letterman doing this?
Ha ha.
You hear Fallon doing this.
No way.
But I'm sorry.
I am the mayor of Reaville.
I take people at their word.
I really do.
I take people at their literal word.
We're not going to support one Muslim sect over another.
There is no military solution, so I'm sending in 300 military advisors.
Those three things don't make any sense.
Now to Obama's audience, they're not supposed to.
All you're supposed to hear is good intentions and fairness and equality.
Oh, it's a beautiful thing.
What you and I hear is the utter absence of any leadership here.
And profound contradiction with every sentence.
So just to review.
We're going to send in, oh, sorry.
First thing, there is no military solution inside Iraq.
So Obama's going to send in 300 military advisors to set up data centers or advisor centers or whatever.
But he's not going to support one Muslim sect over another.
Not going to choose sides between the Sunnis, which is ISIS, the bad guys, and the Shiites, which is Maliki, which is ostensibly our ally, he's not going to choose sides.
Oh, it's a beautiful thing, Mr. Limboy.
You don't understand.
It's so fair.
It's so equal.
We're not choosing sides.
There are no bad guys and good guys.
Okay.
300 military advisors, but no military solutions.
So we're not going to choose sides, but we're sending 300 advisors in.
So, I mean, 150 of them are obviously going to help ISIS, and 150 of them are going to help Maliki.
Now I happen to know Obama wants to get rid of Malachi.
That was in the news earlier today.
It's been floated, and that's what it means.
Malachi must go, like the Shah had to go.
Obama is calling for regime change.
Pure and simple.
Yeah, like you did with Mubarak, Muslim Brotherhood.
But you see the way his audience is hearing this in the media and the low information crowd.
So good and fair and just and it's rooted in equality, and nobody's better than anybody else, and nobody's right, nobody's wrong.
It's just, oh, it's just it's a utopia.
Right.
He's also going to send John Kerry in.
Which means to me that John Kerry didn't go to school.
And here is why I say that.
October 30th, 2006, Pasadena Pasadena City College, Democrat rally for Democrat gubernatorial candidate Phil Angelitas.
You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard and you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, uh you you can do well if you don't, you get stuck in Iraq.
And which is exactly where Kerry is going, gonna get stuck in Iraq.
Which means he didn't go to school.
That would also be on Rush the TV show.
All these soundlights would be on Rush the TV show.
And we'd be laughing ourselves silly.
The audience we'd have a great time.
And it'd be the only place you'd see it.
We have more carry.
What did I do with it?
I had it here.
What are those next care?
Oh, number nine.
Here we go.
Here's Kerry.
This is the other day he said he would welcome and we're gonna work with Iran, and he says he didn't say it.
Today's show, Savannah Guthrie.
You've mentioned that the U.S. is open to at least possibly working with Iran as you deal with the situation with ISIS in northern Iraq.
First of all, I don't know where this comes from that we are we we've suggested working with Iran in that regard.
We have heard you said it in an interview the other day.
What I said is we are interested in communicating with Iran to make clear that the Iranians know what we're thinking and we know what they're thinking, and that there's a sharing of information, so people aren't making mistakes.
Just to be clear, the U.S. isn't considering working hand in hand with Iran.
Because I think for a lot of Americans, head scratcher.
Well, that's not uh it would be a head tracer, and no, we're not sitting around contemplating how we're gonna do that or if we're gonna do that.
Okay, so Lurch says, first of all, I don't know where this comes from that we are that we've suggested working with Iran in that regard.
Well I thought you said it in an interview, didn't it?
What I said is we're interested in communicating with Iran to make clear that blah blah.
Here is what he said.
I wouldn't rule out anything that would be constructive.
Let's see what Iran might or might not be willing to do before we start making any pronouncements.
I think we are open to any constructive process here that could minimize the violence, hold Iraq together, the integrity of the country, and eliminate the presence of outside terrorist forces uh that are ripping it apart.
Now, the question he's answering there was asked by Katie Kurig.
She said, can you see the U.S. cooperating with Iran militarily?
He said, I wouldn't rule out anything be constructive.
Let's see what Iran might or might not be willing to do.
I think we're open to any constructive process.
So, Savannah Guthrie, you mentioned the U.S. open to at least possibly working with Iran.
I didn't say that.
I don't know where this comes from.
What we suggested with Iran is we're interested in communicating with Iran to make clear that the Iranians know that we're thinking caught.
Red-handed, denying it again, now stuck in Iraq.
What is this?
Oh.
Uh, isn't this fascinating?
Uh another thing, folks.
See, I told you so.
Newly released documents show prosecutors are alleging Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker was at the center of a nationwide criminal scheme to illegally coordinate with outside conservative group.
This is an AP story.
He is clearly their new target now.
He's on the cover of a new republic as a racist because he opposes or he supports voter ID.
And now prosecutors alleging Scott Walker at the center of a nationwide criminal scheme to illegally coordinate with outside conservative group.
What is illegal about that?
They are really coming for us here, folks.
They're not even making any bones about it.
Back to the phones we go as time just zips by here on the EIB network.
This is Jim in Palm Coast, Florida.
Jim, thank you for waiting.
Great to have you here on the show.
Yes, I was wondering since the uh Iraqi weapons stockpile is back in the news.
Did anybody ever ask the question?
How did Syria get their chemical weapons?
A lot of people ask that.
You know, the uh uh there were all kinds of reports that people saw trucks leaving Iraq for Syria during the early days of the invasion or right before it.
Uh the people have been look at Saddam did have chemical.
He used them on the Kurds.
He's still got them.
I mean, it's chemical weapons facilities.
ISIS has taken over two separate news accounts today.
Uh uh in fact, Saddam bragged about the weapons of mass destruction he had.
That was explained later by just huffing and puffing and trying to act like the biggest, toughest guy in the Middle East when he really had nothing.
He was just he was just bluffing and so forth.
And we didn't find anything, or if we did, we chose not to announce it.
Uh but that's Basher Assad.
Well, somebody, the Al-Qaeda is using chemical weapons against uh people in Syria, so your question's valid, I think.
You think they came from you think they came from Iraq?
I have a sneaking suspicion that's where they came from.
Yeah.
What's what's the last bit of news you recall about the use of those weapons in Syria?
Oh, it's it's been a couple of months now that They had that one attack not too long ago.
Right.
And it's this is the again, the conventional wisdom had Basher Assad attacking his own people.
And there's nothing in it for him to do that.
If I always thought, I remember saying at the time, that I was dubious.
I always thought it was uh these protest groups, the Al-Qaeda types in Syria attacking innocence and trying to make it look like Assad was doing it.
Anyway, Obama drew a red line and uh told whoever uh not to cross it.
And they did, and then Obama said, I never said I drew a red line.
He said, Conservatives drew the red line.
I never drew a red line.
By the way, uh the uh remember Valerie Plame and her husband Joe Wilson.
They too said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.
I know Joe Wilson did at one time.
The latest news about weapons of mass destruction in Syria is that the deadline to get rid of them has been once again delayed.
That's the latest news about WMD in Syria.
Which means that everybody thinks that there are weapons of mass destruction in Syria.
And so the question is where did whoever who has them get them?
Back after this.
Courtland, New York, this is Bill.
Great to have you, sir.
Welcome to the program.
Hi, Rush.
It's a pleasure to speak with you.
Pleasure to have you, sir.
Yeah, I've got a question regarding this IRS Lois Learner thing.
I was thinking about this, and uh a lot most of us live in real villain.
Since you're the mayor, I thought I'd ask for your guidance.
Um if I'm audited by the IRS, do you think it's a valid excuse to say that I recycled my hard drive?
Only if every receipt you're relying on is on it.
Yeah, I would do it.
And then I would, and then I would say, well, look, I didn't mean for it to happen, and I was preparing, I knew that you were gonna I prepare for an audit every year, and I was getting ready for it, and and my hard drive crashed, and then the server where they're backed up, somebody threw it away.
And I would love to, I just don't have it anymore.
And then they'll disallow it, and that's when you say Lois Learner.
And then after that, you're gonna have to call tax defense partners because they're gonna throw it right back in your face, it doesn't fly.
No, seriously, don't try it.
It you know it won't work for you.
What if my intentions are good?
The IRS doesn't care about your intentions.
They can't be sidetracked by your intentions everybody's intentions are honorable if you're that's what they would hear.
I seriously, I've got to be very careful here.
I was making a joke.
I would not try it.
I know it's tempting.
I know it's something you'd love to say if it ever happened, but uh the IRS, you I don't know if you know the IRS demands that you keep your tax records for six years in case they do come auditing you for past.
You are required by law to keep your records for six years.
I don't know what the law says about Lois Learner keeping her emails.
I understand you're you're you're making a rhetorical point, but I, and it was stated earlier by a caller, I have a very important powerful voice.
I cannot I cannot even accidentally mislead people.
Look, I don't need somebody telling an IRS agent, Rush Limbaugh told me to tell you that I threw away my server and that my hard drive crashed.
So don't try it.
As tempting as it would be.
I uh what I have found with taxes, I'm I'm audited.
can't tell you.
And it's the one.
Well, this is changing.
It used to be the one instance where you're guilty at the outset and have to prove your innocence.
The presumption is you're guilty.
It's been my experience.
No matter what I've told them, Nap, I'm lying.
And they make me prove what I'm saying.
Fourteen different ways for every day in question.
Okay, audio sound bites.
Here is, I mean, if if there was Rush the TV show, these are the sound bites that we'd have a little fun with tonight.
And don't, folks, don't start saying well, do it.
Do it.
No, because I've been there done that.
And you know what I think about television.
I'm just not big on it.
Anyway, here's Obama.
The first sound bite, it's a montage.
This is exactly how we would prepare it if we were trying to do this on TV.
We're prepared to send a small number of additional American military advisors, up to 300, to assess how we can best train, advise, and support Iraqi security forces going forward.
The United States will not pursue military options to support one sect inside of Iraq at the expense of another.
There's no military solution inside of Iraq, certainly not one that is led by the United States.
Now, as soon as that bite finished playing, the studio audience would be rolling in laughter.
Because it's outrageously hilarious.
Every sentence is contradictory.
We are prepared to send a small number of additional American military advisors, up to 300 to assess how we can best train, advise, and support Iraqi security forces.
Okay.
Then the United States will not pursue military options to support one sect inside of Iraq at the expense of another.
Well, then what are we doing training the Iraqi security force?
There are they are one side.
And then there's no military solution inside of Iraq.
Certainly not one that is led by the U.S. This, folks, is non-sequitur after non-sector.
This is this is this is absolutely ludicrous.
None of this put together makes any sense.
It sounds wonderful to a bunch of pacifists.
It sounds wonderful to the changing demographics of America, the people who are tolerant.
And uh minority who want equality and fairness.
Why are we sending anybody if we're not choosing sides?
So we're going to send 300, what I would say is 300 advisors, but we're not choosing sides.
So 150 are going to go to ISIS, and 150 are going to go to the Iraqi security forces.
But if we're not going to support either one, then we don't care who wins, so why are we doing any of this?
Here's the next bite.
We have had advisors in Iraq through our embassy, and we're prepared to send a small number of additional American military advisors, up to 300, to assess how we can best train, advise, and support Iraqi security forces going forward.
American forces will not be returning to combat in Iraq.
Okay, so we're not sending military forces back to Iraq, except that we are.
But we're not sending them in like Bush did.
We're sending advisors.
Small number of advisors, up to 300 to assess how we can best train advise and support.
But American forces will not be returning to combat in Iraq.
That's this is exactly by the way, how Vietnam started.
This is what is it to wait and see.
And then here is the next bite, and we just keep ramming these contradictions at people.
There's no military solution inside of Iraq.
Uh certainly not one that is led by the United States.
Recent days have reminded us of the deep scars left by America's war in Iraq.
Oh longside the loss of nearly 4500 American patriots.
Oh.
Many veterans carry the wounds of that war and will for the rest of their lives.
Yeah.
Here at home, Iraq sparked vigorous debates and intense emotions in the past.
Uh and we've seen some of those debates resurface.
Right.
But what's clear from the last decade is the need for the United States to ask hard questions before we take action abroad.
So the 300 advisors are going to be asking really hard questions once they get there.
I don't know of whom, but they're going to be asking really hard questions.
There's no military solution, but we're going to advise one.
We're going to advise and train uh the Iraqi security forces, but we're not picking anybody to win here.
We're not picking.
Right.
Well.
And of course, uh recent days have reminded us of the deep scars left by America's war in Iraq, but deep scars led by America's war in Iraq.
Here at home, Iraq sparked vigorous debates.
We've seen some of those date debates resurface.
Um it's uh clear from the last decade is the need for the United States to ask hard questions.
Yeah, this is I guess what we have here is a bunch of statements that polled well.
That's what they were doing before they went out there today.
They had focused group, they they had they had done some uh some polls, and they were checking various sentences and how they whether they put together or not, and how they played was I guarantee you.
Poll driven totally.
Gotta take a break.
We'll be back.
Don't go away.
This is Mike in Carlsbad, California.
Beautiful part of the country.
Hello, sir.
Hey, Rush, how are you?
Good.
Hey, just another chapter in monumental hypocrisy.
I was listening to Obama's press conference, and I don't remember verbatim, but he was basically saying that, you know, Maliki needs to get over himself, his ego, and be more inclusive.
And you know, the problem is he's his he's you know putting down his opposition.
And Obama says this with a straight face where, you know, over there, Malik, he needs to be more inclusive to people that disagree with him, but but Obama, his opposition must be destroyed.
I mean, they must be targeted.
That is an excellent point.
And here's Moliki.
I don't know whether he's good or bad or competent or not, but he's got an enemy trying to overthrow him with bullets and overtake towns in his country.
And Obama says you need to be more inclusive.
You need to be more tolerant.
Now I'm gonna send some advisors over here, but we're not gonna pick sides.
You're on your own, buddy.
I don't it still makes no sense.
And yet you come to the United States, and whenever there is an enemy of Obama that pops up, there is no tolerance.
There is no inclusion, and there's no call for it.
There are lawsuits and IRS actions and other nefarious ways of silencing that dissent and opposition in this country.
But all Molochy, he's gotta, he's gotta be open and tolerant of people trying to shoot their way into power over there.
Who said he wasn't me?
Oh.
Well, the only reason he isn't me is that he failed trying to be.
No, no, no.
Uh oh, folks, that's sorry.
Starting to know the microphone.
We're we're out of time here at the EIB network, but we'll be back tomorrow with open line Friday.
Thanks so much.
▲
Export Selection